Learn something new every day about Obamacare

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Ad hominem appears to be your only tactic lately.

Where was the personal attack?

You post something by the Whitehouse, supported by data an agency appointed by the President, serving the President released which says that the ACA, a law not even implemented yet, is responsible for the lowering of medical costs nation wide.

I call bullshit, and that's a personal attack? Man, you have some thin skin.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Where was the personal attack?

You post something by the Whitehouse, supported by data an agency appointed by the President, serving the President released which says that the ACA, a law not even implemented yet, is responsible for the lowering of medical costs nation wide.

I call bullshit, and that's a personal attack? Man, you have some thin skin.

You're reasoning is poor today. Your ad hominem is attacking the source (for bias) of the argument, not the argument itself.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Lucrum:

Obama Affordable Veterinary Act

And if you like your testicles, you can keep them. Period

Funny

 

[Ricter]

Quote from bigarrow:

Funny

Lol, that is.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

You're reasoning is poor today. Your ad hominem is attacking the source (for bias) of the argument, not the argument itself.

Because the source has shown it's desire to mislead, obfuscate and generally slant data to it's favor repeatedly in the last few years. And because the claim is so outrageous, of course (a bill effecting nationwide costs before being in effect). It's like Venezuelan's Maduro releasing data to show how confiscating the nation's private businesses is driving GDP. I don't need to have data to surmise that the premise being declared is, in fact, horseshit.

And your grammar is poor today.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Because the source has shown it's desire to mislead, obfuscate and generally slant data to it's favor repeatedly in the last few years. And because the claim is so outrageous, of course (a bill effecting nationwide costs before being in effect). It's like Venezuelan's Maduro releasing data to show how confiscating the nation's private businesses is driving GDP.

And your grammar is poor today.

I'll keep poor grammar and you keep poor reasoning. Nothing you say changes the fact that the CEA may be correct (in spite of any bias they may have). That's the problem with ad hominem argumentation.

You're wrong about the law not having an effect yet, insurers have been publishing new rates for many months now, more competition has already been created. Assuming they intend to hit their margin targets, they'll either need to reduce costs, increase productivity, or both.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

I'll keep poor grammar and you keep poor reasoning. Nothing you say changes the fact that the CEA may be correct (in spite of any bias they may have). That's the problem with ad hominem argumentation.

They may, indeed, be correct since there is no real easy way to disprove it apart from logic. Maduro might be correct too.

Logic, however, usually trumps propaganda - which this most certainly is.

Quote from Ricter:


You're wrong about the law not having an effect yet, insurers have been publishing new rates for many months now, more competition has already been created. Assuming they intend to hit their margin targets, they'll either need to reduce costs, increase productivity, or both.

The spending fall that the source document is referring to is estimated 2012 and 2013 data. Meaning actuals are only through 2011. Regardless of how "many months" insurers have been publishing rates, they did not affect 2011 and prior data, and the other data is merely a projection. Not proof of anything. In fact, if true, it represents a trend of declining costs that are more related to economic conditions than any bill which hasn't gone into effect yet.

Read the fine print on point #1.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

They may, indeed, be correct since there is no real easy way to disprove it apart from logic. Maduro might be correct too.

Logic, however, usually trumps propaganda - which this most certainly is.



The spending fall that the source document is referring to is estimated 2012 and 2013 data. Meaning actuals are only through 2011. Regardless of how "many months" insurers have been publishing rates, they did not affect 2011 and prior data, and the other data is merely a projection. Not proof of anything. In fact, if true, it represents a trend of declining costs that are more related to economic conditions than any bill which hasn't gone into effect yet.

Read the fine print on point #1.

You may well prove right. I'm not inclined to argue it further, as I'm satisfied that the question of whether Obamacare is a "disaster" or not is still up in the air, and imo it's probably not going to turn out that bad.

Someone said that if Obamacare was certain to fail epically then the reps would not have to fight it so energetically but simply let it blow up and hurt dems' reputation. The real fear behind reps efforts is that Obamacare will work and thus become irreversible.

 

[jem]

the real fear is that obamacare is an economy cratering disaster instead of just being a health care disaster...

and...

the republicans will regain congress... and the establishment will sell out to the insurance companies and not repeal it.

that is what we are all scared as hell of. The only patriots we know of are a few real old school liberals... (a rare bread) and some in the tea party. The rest of the sons of bitches on the hill will sell out for a few grand in their personal slush fund... I mean leadership account.

everyone with a brain... knows obamacare is destroying health care as it is written.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

the real fear is that obamacare is an economy cratering disaster instead of just being a health care disaster...

A real fear curiously missing when the shutdown, but especially the debt ceiling hike, was being threatened. Was that because reps really believed those things would have no negative impact on the economy? If so, why threaten with them?